Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Murder Suspect Timothy Madden

I have been requested to analyze this transcript. I have not heard of the suspect, nor do I know any details of this case. It is best to analyze "cold" so that the facts or evidence do not influence my analysis. Afterwards, I will read about it.

If the denial violates anyone of these or adds or subtracts to it, it is deemed an "Unreliable Denial."

For example:

"Didn't kill him!" misses the pronoun "I"

"I would never kill him" misses the verb "did not"

"I never killed him" misses the verb "did not" and uses the vague "never", which is something liars sometimes use in replacement.

*If a person says, "I did not kill him" and when asked, "Why should we believe you?" and answers, "Because I told the truth", it is 99.9% likely to be truthful.

The Reliable Denial must come in the Free Editing Process, that is, from the subject's own words. If, for instance, someone gives an interview and does NOT deny, but then reads online about the denial, and goes back to the media and says, "I did not kill her" it is not from the Free Editing Process. Get this same person talking freely, and the language will once again be his own, reliable, and will guide to the truth.

Parroting Language is unreliable, which is why we ask legally sound, open ended questions.

MADDEN:It’s all bogus. I’m a very innocent man. They can ask anybody that knows me.

Here we note that he does not deny the murder.

He is not only "innocent" but "very" innocent, making his "innocence" sensitive.

"innocent" speaks to judicial conclusion and not to the act.

Due to the very plain nature of the question, this answer is not only "Unreliable" but is very likely to be deceptive.

He "proves" his innocence by not what he believes of himself, but the opinion of others.

This is a long way from simply saying, "I didn't kill him" and even his "innocency" is sensitive to him.

This is not the language of one who did not do it.

People accused of heinous crimes face no legal nor civil consequences for saying I did not do it. Those who say, "on advice of counsel... are avoiding the question.

The innocent, disgusted by the allegation and embolden by de facto innocence, will dismiss attorney advice, go to the roof of his home, grab a mic and say, "I did not do it!"

See analysis of Michael Jackson for example.

MIEURE: Why did they connect you to this murder?

MADDEN:Small-town gossip. They said I fit the suspect.

Here he quotes someone else, therefore it is not an "embedded confession" but the language of another.

Statement Analysis deals with what one says, and what one does not say.

Here, I expect him to say, "They say I fit the suspect, but I didn't do it."

He does not.

Rule: if a subject is unwilling or unable to tell us that he did not do it, we will not say it for him.

MIEURE: Do you know what that was?

MADDEN:Six foot tall. Brown coat. Long beard. Pretty much that’s all I knew about it. But then I knew they found the little girl’s body later on that night and then locked the ballgame down.

In the Free Editing Process, in less than a micro-second of time, his brain tells his tongue what to say and here he adds in "pretty much" as additional words, meaning:

It took more effort.

The 'law of economy' tells us that additional words, born of extra effort, are important.

Here, he qualifies his knowledge with "pretty much" which tells us:

He knows more about the suspect than he says.

MIEURE: Do you know the Doolin family?

MADDEN: Yes. I know I went to school with him.

MIEURE: You went to school with her dad?

MADDEN: With her daddy, yes.

MIEURE: Okay. How well did you know them? Are you a family friend?

MADDEN: Yeah. I mean, yeah, I was friends with him all through school. And then we ran around together there after school for a while. And then my little daughter, she plays cheerleading with her – with the little girl.

Always note the language used to address the victim.

His daughter is "my little daughter" with "daughter" a title following the possessive pronoun. The same law of economy noted before tells us that consistency is also expected in context.

He was specifically speaking of his friend. After school, the relationship produced the pronoun "we", while "ran around together", indicating closeness.

Think: "we" means unity, cooperation, closeness. He is talking about a friend and it produced this pronoun, "we." From this context, he went to the murder victim.

He removed the victim from his friend in the linguistic expression of the relationship.

She is "the little girl", which is not only to 'divorce' the child from his friend, of whom he just united himself with, via instinctive pronoun, but to then "distance" himself from her.

She is not "his daughter" but "girl" and the article, "the" furthers the distance.

"the girl" is, without knowing any details of this case, something that should cause investigators to investigate possible sexual abuse. "Girl" is gender specific. "The" is distancing language.

Statement Analysis: a man cannot molest his own daughter. If he is to molest her he must "change the linguistic perception" of her. This was seen recently in "my daughter" changed into "the girl" when he molested her while his wife was not home. When his wife returned home, the "girl" was now "safe", and she returned back to the status of "my daughter."

Statement Analysis deals not with reality, but one's linguistic perception of reality.

MIEURE:If you’re innocent, why would someone accuse you of this?

MADDEN:I have no idea. I have no idea.

The statement "I have no idea" should never be accepted as a "stop sign" in an interview. It is the bane of the lazy minded, at times, but since we all have some ideas about everything in life, it simply is not true. If follow up questions are asked, you will learn that he does, in fact, have "ideas" about why he was accused which will prove he was not truthful when he claimed to have "no idea."

In fact, interviewers should take it as a signal to ask another...

That he repeated this, he tells us that it is a sensitive question, and he is likely withholding the answer.

He very much likely knows exactly why he has been accused.

MIEURE: You’re from Scottsville?

MADDEN: Yes.

MIEURE: Okay. Were you at the game that night?

MADDEN:Yup. I was at the game. My son was playing football, and my little daughter was there with us too.

MIEURE: Hm. So now what? I mean, you’re in jail—

MADDEN: I’m in jail, yeah, but I still am innocent. So we'll figure a way out of it. "

Note that this is true: he is "innocent" in that judicially, he has not been found guilty. Even those found guilty will use this phrase in place of the Reliable Denial.

The pronoun "we" here may be him and his lawyer. We do not interpret, however, and let the subject guide us.

We believe what one tells us unless they give us strong indicators to the contrary. Thus far, he has not lied about his judicial innocence.

MIEURE: How are you going to do that?

This is not such a bad question as it is another opportunity for him to say, "hey, I did not kill her, so they can't prove it. I don't care how much they look. I didn't kill her but someone did and they need to find out who killed her!" or anything similar.

MADDEN:I’ll have a lawyer, I reckon, the only way. Because I have nothing to hide. I’ve cooperated every way that they wanted me to cooperate.

1. He introduces that he has, indeed, something to hide with "I have nothing to hide." This means he is thinking of something that he does not want to be learned or "found out"

"I have nothing to hide" is an invitation for investigators.

Please note that guilty people often point to their cooperation as "proof" that they did not do it, while avoiding saying "I didn't do it."

Truly innocent people will say "I didn't do it" and then point to the cooperation if pressed. Many do not care because they did not do it. "The righteous are as bold as a lion." The Guilty sometimes try to inflate their linguistic muscles.

MIEURE: Hm. What types of rumors were going around that—

MADDEN:Oh, it’s all over Topix. And then when I do get out of here, I will sue KSP and everybody else that’s slandering my name.

Another sensitive point, though more so for innocent family members: they hurt too much to care to file suit, they hold little interest in this, as they are grieving.

MADDEN:I’m sorry for your loss. I feel sorry for them, but it wasn’t me.

Please note that guilty people often have "sorry" slip out of their tongues, for whatever reason. It is a word on their minds and it is not a "smoking gun" point; just something we note.

Here, however, it is repeated.

What would you say to a friend who's child has been murdered and you are in jail for it?

"You need to find the killer. I did not kill your daughter. "

He avoids this.

"...but, it wasn't me" is, in Statement Analysis, "passive voice", which is used to conceal identity or responsibility.

"The gun went off" is an example of passive voice.

"A shot was heard" is another example of passive voice.

If it is not known who caused the shot (like in a crowd), passive voice is appropriately used.

"it wasn't me" avoids issuing a Reliable Denial.

Think of a murder case you know well.

Then, search the blog for it. You will find OJ, Casey, and others did not issue Reliable Denials.

MIEURE: What do you want to say to the public?

Here, the Interviewer does a good job giving ample opportunity for the denial:

Will he tell us, using the pronoun "I" that he did not kill or murder the little girl?

We will let him guide us:

MADDEN:Well, if they find the right person, I will come out and I will, like I said, sue everybody that’s slandering my name and put me where I am at today. Because I am innocent – [INAUDIBLE] know I am. And everybody knows me, knows I am.

He avoids issuing a reliable denial.

If he is incapable of saying it, I am not permitted to say it for him.

Given the generous opportunities afforded him by the interviewer, including this simple language, you should believe the subject's refusal to deny the action.

He denies the judicial result, but not the action.

The innocent deny the action.

In a child murder case, a suspect said, "I did not harm the girl."

This was not a Reliable Denial. It was a violation of component number three, the specific allegation was murder. To "harm" is to change "murder" via minimizing language. It is common in the language of the guilty where children are involved.

MIEURE: Tell me -- walk me through the day today, from – I mean, they arrested you around 11:30 this morning. Did they just show up at your house—

Far better to get him to enter the Free Editing Process (FEP) would be to have him "take me through the day" she was murdered.

He would then go into memory and he would very likely tell us what time she died and how she died. It is very difficult to lie and as he considers what he did, the incredible speed of transmission is disrupted which creates stress.

For example:

If I asked you, "What did you do this morning?"

If you are of average intelligence, you have a personal dictionary of about 25,000 words.

As you go to answer you must:

a. Decide which of these 25,000 words to use

b. What information to reveal

c. What order

d. Where to place each word

e. What tenses of each word

and all of this takes place in less than a microsecond of time.

To avoid implicating yourself, you will have to disrupt this process, which causes internal stress which is picked up in the polygraph.

It is difficult to lie.

With this 'tangent' question, I will still continue to look for a "confession by pronoun", which is often found by the pronoun "my."

Humans are possessive creatures. We take ownership of what we want and deny what we do not want.

Patsy Ramsey said, "my guilt", as did OJ.

MADDEN: I have no idea. I don’t [INAUDIBLE] time it was. But I seen ‘em driving up and down the road, and I seen this truck driving up and down the road. And it kept circling in the driveway, backing out, going up and down the road, and we’s up at my father-in-law’s house. And then he…and I told him, I said, ‘There’s that truck still up there at the end of the road.’ So he went up there to talk to them and he just waited up there and waited up there, so I figured I would go up there and see what was going on, so I walked up there and got about halfway up there, and they got out of the truck and came down there and said I had a warrant for my arrest.

This is not a pronoun confession but the expected is,

"They said they had a warrant to arrest me" but here he brings 'closeness' or 'possession' to the arrest.

Innocent people distance themselves from guilt, arrest, incarceration. They do not accept it, even over the passage of time.

This was not a good question as it allowed him to go off on a tangent, but even this gave us a 'hint' by pronoun.

Every person has a personal, internal subjective dictionary. Pronouns, articles, and objective time on a clock are the only exceptions. Pronouns are universal, intuitive and instinctive.

He is male

She is female

I is one

We is plural

This is for all of us.

MIEURE: How did they get a warrant signed in the first place?

He is fishing...

MADDEN: They say they got evidence, but…

MIEURE: What type of evidence do they have against you?

MADDEN:I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ve not seen it.

"I don't know"

a. This is the number one deceptive answer in court ("I don't recall"

b. It is repeated, making it sensitive.

He knows.

"I've not seen it" is likely to be true. It is likely that it was read or told to him. It is likely that he was told of certain evidence that he has not seen, for himself. The structure of the sentence suggests reliability. It is short and direct.

MIEURE: Did they tell you?

MADDEN: [NODS NO]

MIEURE: Had they questioned you at all before your arrest?

This is where he may have heard of the evidence; and it is why investigators who are well trained (Analytical Interviewing) do not reveal much in the wording of their questions:

MADDEN:Oh yeah, several times. Interrogated me, like three or four times. Polygraph. I give ‘em my clothes that night. I think – yeah, they did mention I had blood on my clothes or something, but because I rubbed against a fence – like I said, rubbed against a trash can. That’s the only thing I know where I’d get blood from, but it wasn’t me.

They did not "show" him the evidence but the interview which went to accusations (interrogation) including blood on his clothes.

Although the reader likely knows at this point that he is guilty of murder, there is very much information here left to glean, that goes outside the scope of a blog article. Yet, here is an example:

"like I said" is a self reference. This means he is speaking from memory, not experiential memory of the crime, but memory of what he said earlier: it is stressful to keep track of lies, while easy to keep track of that which is in memory with experience (due to elevation of hormones).

That’s the only thing I know where I’d get blood from, but it wasn’t me.

With the simple addition of "I know" he now tells us what should have been 'unnecessary': the source of the blood. This is a linguistic signal that he got the blood from something other than rubbing against a trash can. He is specifically thinking this, and needs to "call in the reinforcement" of that which he himself does not believe.

Watch:

"I did not kill my wife" is very strong.

"I know that I did not kill my wife" is suddenly, and surprising, weaker. Why the need for reinforcement? This may be due to challenge.

On the topic of blood, the interviewer did not say anything specific, and the source of the blood is sensitive to him and he likely knows that investigators did not believe the very same thing that he does not believe.

"I got the blood from the trash can" would have been straight forward and stronger.

MIEURE: Is there any DNA evidence that they’ve—

MADDEN: No.

MIEURE: Did they said if—

MADDEN: I don’t -- If it is, it ain’t mine, you know, so—

MIEURE: Okay.

Analytical Interviewing: NEVER disrupt. He has info; we do not. We get it by listening. The topic is DNA:

MADDEN:So maybe it will work out, because I’m an innocent man. I shouldn’t be here.

He allows for, in context, the DNA to "not work out" while reiterating his unreliable denial.

MIEURE: What’s your family thinking right now?

Expectation: "They are thinking how bad it is for me to be here since I did not kill the girl and the real killer is out there...."

MADDEN:Oh, I have no idea. I’ve not seen then since they put me in the car. I’m sure they’re terrified and upset.

MIEURE: Okay. Anything else you want to say to anyone?

The interviewer is still trying to get the RD. It is no longer necessary.

MADDEN: Nope. Just tell my kids I love them. Daddy will be alright.

I would want to tell everyone, especially the prosecutor, that I did not kill the child, and that I want my kids to know that I did not kill her. It is a terrible thing for children to consider their father as a chid killer.

MIEURE: So you have kids about the same age as the Doolin kids?

MADDEN: Well, I’ve got – one of them is. I’ve got, scattered out from 20 years old to…he’ll be a four-month-old the 25th.

MIEURE: How are you going to claim your evidence besides…I mean, if you were there that night, is there anyone that will—

This was clever: he puts the subject at the location in order for the subject to respond.

Remember how the guilty will go from "I" to "we" to hide their guilt among others?

Listen to what he does. It is the same in Katelyn Markham where the boyfriend immediately spreads out the potential suspects, though he was not asked:

MADDEN:Oh yeah, there were several people there. I’ve got all kinds of people to verify that I was there, you know, and seen me. I even took pictures on my phone to prove I was there, you know, to send to my ex-wife because she wasn’t there, and she wanted to see Blake playing football. So, I mean, I’ve got – I believe I’ll be okay.

Yes, 'I was there but so were so many others...' is still avoidance of saying, "I don't care if there were a million people there, I didn't kill her."

MIEURE: Did they ask you questions about, like, you know, ‘Were you in the bleachers when Gabbi went missing?’ and things like that?

It is interesting to hear the name, "Gabbi" used. Since it is most easy to parrot language back, will the subject use it, or avoid it?

MADDEN: Oh yeah. Several times.

MIEURE: And what’s your – what are you claiming?

This is very good: he is trying to get the subject to speak for himself and the last time the victim was seen by the subject is critical. This is why it is always asked:

"What was your last time together like?" in domestic homicides.

MADDEN:Last time I seen her, I was we was – I was – sitting on the side of the [INAUDIBLE], like I always, watching the…smoking a cigarette. And she walked by. And the other two girls came acro – through there first…I don’t know…a minute before. And then she came over there looking around, and I said, ‘Well, they went that way.’ And that was the last time I saw her.

a. The change of pronoun is an indicator of guilt. Pronouns do not lie and pronouns are instinctive.

b. body posture indicates increase in tension "sitting"

c. Normal: any wording to describe "normal" indicates something very 'not normal' is about to take place. Even first grade children know that when they hear, "It was a day like all others" to pay attention: something that is very much unlike every day is about to happen. "like I always" tells us that he did something that he did not normally do, in relation to the victim; Please also note that when a person calls himself "normal" it is a linguistic signal that he, or someone else, has considered him abnormal. d. "And" to begin a sentence tells us that there is missing information between sentences. e. Note "she walked by" and "the other two girls came by first" is out of chronological order. Experiential memory is chronological. Here, he is editing his statement and it is out of sequence. When we learn what he did to her, we will see how the sequence then fits. There is missing critical information. He tells us that she was "looking around" and he gave direction. This is likely where he accompanied her. Objection: how could you possible know?Answer: one word.He does not want to connect himself to her otherwise it could be proven that he killed her. He "self censored" in this most sensitive of answers: that is, he stopped himself and he halted on pronouns. Since we use pronouns millions of times, we are never 'wrong' with them. Never. Dennis Dechaine murdered 13 year old Sarah Cherry in the woods of Maine. I was asked to join his team to free him. I reviewed his testimony. He was alone in the woods, high on drugs, and had never even met his victim. He said, "I was standing admiring the deciduous trees when we were losing daylight..."I saw the pronoun "we" and knew that he was not alone and declined assistance. Later, I read the blood evidence, etc. It was not necessary. The subject, Timothy Madden spoke of the last time he saw the victim and said, "I was, we was, I...."He self censored tying himself to her, even though he admitted speaking to her.

I have proven this accuracy to investigators at every seminar of investigators since 2009. I ask them to ready themselves to share a true story and ask that it be, in the least, 20 years old or more, depending upon their age. "Do you have your story?""Is it a true story? It must be true and it must be very old. Are you read to tell your true story?They may not remember what they had for breakfast a week ago Tuesday but when they prepare their story, some of them are even 30 years old, each and every investigator knows if their true story will begin with "I"or will begin with "we";that is to say, they know if they were alone, or with someone else even though decades of time has eroded memory. Pronouns are powerful, intuitive and 100% accurate. He halted or 'stuttered' to censor himself from the plural "we" back to the singular "I."I have not heard of this case and I do not know details other than he is accused of murdering a child. Police have arrested the right man. Out of the abundance of the heart (the heart is the seat of the intellect and the emotions) the words will come.Statement Analysis does not interpret, it listens. Objection: you just 'interpreted' body posture as an increase in tension. Answer: I believe him. He said he was "sitting" and I do not reinterpret sitting to mean anything else. It is why he felt the need to add body posture as to importance. We believe it, but why the necessity?

"My boss said to be at work at 9."This is straight forward language, but note the inclusion of body posture and change of communicative language:

"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9."We still believe the boss was "standing" but we note the importance of it as included in the language, if unnecessary. If, for example, he was asked, "Were you seated?", then it would not signify anything, but that he offered it, not only do I believe him, but I have to ask why it entered his language. It often does in association with a slight up tick in tension..."My daughter did her homework.""My daughter sat at the table and did her homework" is a subtle change; perhaps it is challenging to get her to "sit still" so I have both body posture and location added. Perhaps she listens to music in her bedroom when she should be doing homework. We do not interpret, we listen and we ask why. "Looking around"Please note that in child abuse cases, the victim is often blamed. Perpetrators will even ask if we, the investigator or interviewer, know "the look" or "the walk" of a child. This is to say that the child was "asking" to be abused. The ego of the guilty is desperate to justify his action. I do not know the details but this phrase, "she was looking around" does not say she was looking for her friends. THAT was out of chronological order. Does the subject believe that the victim was "looking" for him to do something to her?****Is this subtle blaming of the victim?Again, sexual abuse should be explored in this case.

MIEURE: And people were searching at that point?

MADDEN: No. [INAUDIBLE] And then nobody started searching for – I don’t know – 30 or 45 minutes, I guess.

MIEURE: So you saw her go by, back toward –That is not what he said...she was "looking..."

MADDEN: Well, she came in front of the bleachers to the back of the bleachers. [LONG PAUSE, AS MICROPHONE IS ADJUSTED.] And that’s all I know.This is a very strong statement of not wanting this line of questioning to continue. After all, if that is all the subject knows, why bother to ask more questions?In a missing persons case, it is often a signal that the subject no longer wants to share information as most people are forever thinking of possibilities when one goes missing.

MIEURE: Okay. I guess, just, if you want to summarize: Why are you so confident that you’re innocent?

This is a rather leading question but the only right answer is:"Because I did not do it."

MADDEN:Because I know I am. I’ve done nothing wrong.Please note that he now admits that he did something but what he did was not "wrong."In my own interviewing, I have a high rate of admissions. An admission is to admit having done what was alleged. A "confession" is the same, legally, but includes an acknowledged of what was done was morally wrong. He has done something to her, but what he did was not "wrong" in his personal viewpoint. This is the language of child molesters.

This is also a good question. People HATE to condemn themselves so they usually soften the blow or exxagerate it to a level that is so far "above" their own selves as to have no emotional connection or "sting" from it.

MADDEN: [LAUGHS.] Bad individual out there.

Please note no pronoun is produced. "Bad" is mild language.

MIEURE: I mean, if someone came—

MADDEN: He’s crazy.This is to address mental health. See if the suspect has a mental health history: he does.

MIEURE: --if someone came forward, that could mean your freedom.

MADDEN: Right.

MIEURE: Do you have anything you want to say to them?

MADDEN:Well, they need to. Because I know it wasn’t me. And my family knows it ain’t me. And everybody in Scottsville knows it me. If they know me, anyway, you know.Even within the Unreliable Denial he moves from past tense to present tense.

MIEURE: Why are people pointing fingers?

MADDEN: I have no idea. I guess ‘cause KSP started the rumors…At least he finally has an idea.

MIEURE: Okay, anything—

MADDEN: Because when they showed up at the house, they brought the news cameras with them, so [INAUDIBLE] that’s how it all started.

MIEURE: Huh.

MADDEN: But I ain’t got nothing else to say.

MIEURE: Okay. Alright. Thank you.

PHOTOJOURNALIST JEFF GORDON: Have you been arrested before?

MADDEN: Years ago.

GORDON: On what?

MADDEN: Cold checks. Traffic tickets.

MIEURE: Just misdemeanors?

MADDEN: Yes.

GORDON: Are you a sex offender?

MADDEN: Nope.

MIEURE: Thanks for your time. We appreciate it.

**INTERVIEW ENDS**

Copyright 2015 by WDRB News. All rights reserved.

Analysis Conclusion:

This subject murdered the child and police should investigate if it was sex related or if he has molested children in his life. He gave a linguistic signal of sexual intrusion into this case. The "looking for" may be a subtle blaming of a victim who, in his perverse and evil linguistic perception, was "looking for" him to do to her what he did. Soiopathic types feel the same internal stress of lying that all do: it is not about conscience, but the disruption in the speed of transmission.

63 comments:

Skeptic
said...

I can't keep up with your prolific blogging. Are you planning to take some down time over Thanksgiving ? If so then maybe I can catch up. I want to go back and read old posts that I haven't had time for, but you just keep posting new ones.

SAN DIEGO - A more than 200-page petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed with the Supreme Court of the State of California on Scott Peterson's behalf to have his murder conviction overturned.

Peterson was convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder for the death of his wife, Laci, and second-degree murder for the death of their unborn child.

On a website dedicated to Scott Peterson's appeal, his family said there are 19 claims in the petition that highlight new evidence that shows the court should overturn his conviction.

”It’s been difficult and we’re on the long path to justice,” Janey Peterson, Scott Peterson’s sister-in-law, told 10News from her San Diego home. “The basis of a habius petition is new evidence that was not presented in the courtroom.”

RELATED | Scott Peterson: Life in prison 10 years after killing wife Laci

The petitions claims a juror lied on her application and should never have been in the courtroom in the first place.

“One of the jurors evidently lied on her jury application. She said she’s never been involved in a lawsuit. She’d never testified as a witness. Both those things are not true,” Janey Peterson said.

They also say there is evidence that was never told or shown to jurors, including evidence that numerous neighbors saw Laci Peterson alive walking their dog after Scott had left for the day.

“It is to me clearly evident, not only that Scott is innocent, but in addition to that he did not get a fair trial,” Janey Peterson said.

The petition also states that Scott Peterson had ineffective counsel.

“There were things that Mark Geragos could have done better,” Janey Peterson said.

Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve in 2002 and her body was recovered on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay in 2003, where Scott Peterson had been boating on the day of her disappearance.

Scott Peterson was arrested in April of that year and convicted of the murders in March 2005. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection.

Peter, does this interview suggest in any way that this was a crime of opportunity? Or that he planned this, he has had his "eye" on this particular girl for awhile, referencing that she cheerleaded with his daughter. To me, it seems a particularly bold crime, a huge crowd of people, he follows or leads the child away (but not to far, just behind the high school) rapes, sodomizes , strangles and drowns her, and then business as usual? Would we infer that this is his first murder? Has he murdered children before after raping them? Does anything in this brief interview suggest such a thing?

"I even took pictures on my phone to prove I was there, you know, to send to my ex-wife because she wasn’t there, and she wanted to see Blake playing football."

The addition of "to prove I was there, you know," seems unneccesary if his purpose for taking pictures was to share with his ex-wife. He could have simply said, "I took pictures on my phone to send to my ex-wife..." The word "even" before took is also a strange inclusion.

His DNA and this interview will prove his guilt.Lynda, I agree, it was a "bold" (first) murder with that huge crowd at the game. Plus he called himself "very innocent", investigators should check if there are other victims.

Underneath is a summary. There are 3 clips in the link. The third clip is her stepdad Britton Ramsey:

BROOKLYN, Ohio - Brooklyn Police are asking for help to find 15-year-old Alexis Boroviak, who has been missing since Sunday night.

The Ohio Attorney General has labeled Alexis an "endangered" missing child, noting that Brooklyn police are concerned for her safety.

Alexis, a sophomore at Brooklyn High School, was last seen around 7:15 p.m. on Sunday.

Her stepdad Britton Ramsey said Alexis was dressed in pajamas ready for bed, her hair still wet from a shower, when she went to the home's backyard to let the family dog out.

Fifteen minutes later, the dog was still tied up but Alexis was nowhere to be found.

Family, friends and strangers have searched the area and continue to hang posters with her picture in the area.

"I will do whatever it takes," said her mother, Linda Chalfant. "This is my baby."

"First thought is an abduction, and still, along those lines because this is not her," Ramsey said Monday evening, 24 hours after the girl was last seen. "She just vanished."

Police said there were no witnesses to her disappearance. Police have leads, but none have led to Alexis.

A plea from a heartbroken mother to anyone who knows anything about her daughter's disappearance to call police.

She also has a message for her daughter: "Come home. I love you and I miss you."

Missing girl fliers are plastered on nearly every pole and business in Brooklyn.

Alexis is described by police as a white girl with brown eyes, blond and brown hair, stands 5 feet, 3 inches tall and weighs 156 pounds. She was last seen wearing lavender pajama pants, a black hooded sweatshirt, grey Nike shoes and glasses.

Police said she may walk with a limp due to a past knee injury.

Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 216-749-1234.

Taken from the 3rd clip:

Hers stepfather: It's unknown if he uses the pronoun "she" before the clip starts. Took a shower get ready for bed, normal stuff, everything was normal.And er, she came out to take the dog out to use the bathroom, normal, before she went to bed, and err, never made it back home, never made it. (the clip stops here. Although it maybe my LT)

This is taken from an earlier statement:

Family of missing Ohio teenager plead for her safe return after two weeks

The family of a 15-year-old Ohio girl who has been missing for two weeks have pleaded for her to come home.

Alexis (Lexi) Boroviak disappeared from her home in the Cleveland suburb of Brooklyn on Sunday Nov. 8 after leaving to walk the family dog.

Just 10 minutes later, her stepsister discovered the dog in front of the house but Boroviak was nowhere to be seen.

Boroviak’s mother Linda Chalfant and stepfather Britton Ramsey pleaded for her to return home safely amid fears that the teen has run away, according to Cleveland.com.

MADDEN: No. [INAUDIBLE] And then nobody started searching for – I don’t know – 30 or 45 minutes, I guess.

I think he was very aware of the time between when he first saw her and when the search began. He knew he had a limited amount of time before her parents would get worried and start looking. He adds "I don't know" and "I guess" to make it appear as if he is simply guessing the amount of time that passed. How does he know if "nobody" was searching sooner?

Madden: I'm in jail, yeah, but I'm still innocent, so we'll figure a way out of it"

A change in pronouns from "I'm" to "we"ll when he thinks about "a way out of it." Spreading the guilt without saying what "it" is. He is minimizing the accusations of the rape and murder of Gabbi like it's a game of wits.

"...so we'll figure a way out of it" is not expected from a man who is accused of a horrific crime like this.

He can't bring himself to call Gabbi by her name or say she's his friend's daughter. He refers to her as "the girl" throughout the interview.

When Mr. Madden blamed the small town gossips for his arrest, I couldn't help but think that he hates females or/and he has remorse for something that he did secretly.

Highly unlikely he'll prevail on this, beyond the fact that habeas corpus applications rarely succeed. The juror argument is ridiculous. That is the very definition of harmless error. Everyone out here knows he's guilty. His parents actually live in the same neighborhood as my college boyfriend. I think they went to the same high school, but Scott is a bit older.

Peter, why do you think he killed her? I understand if he molested her, but why kill? so she wouldn't tell? With everything on TV crime shows did he not think his DNA would match? They said he raped the child.

I, like many, am new to your site due to interest in the Blackburn case. Correct me if I am wrong but I think the raison d'être of this site and your posts are to teach SA to the general public so that amateurs can use this technology to assist them in their daily (business, relationships, media, etc)

As such, I wonder if you have ever used Russell Williams' (Canadian Armed Forces officer, rapist, murder) videotaped confession as a learning template for comparison purposes? Is there anything one can glean from from RW"s language that is similar to the DB case?

Video of this interview is online. Just google his name and "live interview". I'm impressed with this reporter as she has not tried to take the spotlight, just asks simple and appropriate questions. His 20 year old son was arrested for threatening LE by messaging them on Facebook. He has joined his father in jail.

MzOpinion said, " just wanted to point out that the man pictured above is only 38 years old. THIRTY-EIGHT!"

I sure noticed that also. He looks in his 50's easily. I'm at a loss for his cockiness about not finding DNA when he raped and sodomized her. Also, he strangles her AND drowns her? Or he strangled her into unconsciousness and thinking she was dead, threw her in the creek where she drowned? Was his intent to murder? I would definitely be looking at unsolved murders or missing children, that was my thinking when asking Peter if SA applied to this interview gleans that this is not his first murder. Reminds me of Morgan Nick disappearing from a ball game in Arkansas many years ago. They never found her though.

I'm very familiar with this story and this guy creeps me out. How is he only 38? He looks much older. He just fits the creepy profile. He was there and I'm sure they have their man. I do have to say that parents need to keep a good eye on their young children. I would never let a girl this young out of my sight. On the other hand games like this are almost always safe places.

I have to go back and finish reading but something popped out at me. When he gets to the part about the last time he saw her and it's where he does the whole I. we I. If you take his words and put them together, he was always sitting "inaudible" smoking and watching. Could he have been stalking her nd her friends? JLG

He even took pictures to prove he was there - well, if that doesn't say 'not very bright', I don't know what does.

---

Re- Amanda Blackburn's murder:I wondered if the reason the intruder went back and stayed in the house so long, and closed the front door behind him when he left, was because Weston was actually up, and downstairs - and if he was told to stay until Davey was five minutes from home. Burglars don't generally go to the trouble of closing doors. If the baby was up, he probably would not want to have picked him up and put him in his crib in case he left DNA evidence. I made a post about it on one of the recent earlier Blackburn threads, but I don't know if anyone is still on that thread. It would be interesting to know if Davey entered the house before he went and sat on the drive for almost an hour. I can't think of any other reason why the intruder/shooter would risk hanging around so long, to the extent that his accomplices were going to leave him there - unless he was told to make sure no harm came to the baby, so he waited till Davey was almost home before leaving. It would not have taken him long to find the book-bag with the MacBook Pro and the books, which were the items stolen? - also, why didn't he sling the books - they were probably about Jesus, and it seemed from the FB profiles they were more interested in Tupac. I wondered if the books were Amanda's diaries, journals, or 'Complete Guide to Successfully Divorcing a Sociopath' , sort of thing. It's interesting Davey is lugging Amanda's 'journal' round the television studios but didn't have it in him at the time when Amanda's father was sat next to him - an uncomfortable few moments for Davey, there, especially as the interviewer seemed to be under the impression that Davey would be reading from the journal. I wonder if the stolen items have been recovered, and whether it was Amanda's laptop, or Davey's.

Too many Wonderings. :-/

--

Have a good Thanksgiving, to those who do. I will soon be off on my travels for the next week or so, but will try to keep up. :)

Here you have a suspect who is an a "traditional" encounter with LE, being questioned by them *as a suspect.* He is given multiple opportunities to issue a reliable denial and is unable to do so.

By contrast, we do not have any record of DB being questioned in the same manner. He had really only one opportunity to issue a reliable denial, and it was an awkwardly phrased question during a television interview.

BTW, I thought Peter's summary of the Blackburn case last night was outstanding. So much so that it shook my emerging confidence that DB was not involved. I'm back to being "on the fence" on that one, fwiw. I give DB the benefit of the doubt unless police come forward with new evidence connecting him to the killers, but his overall linguistic record since the murder is extremely disturbing.

Happy Thanksgiving to all. I am so thankful for my family and other loved ones this year, and my prayers go out to all those who are grieving.

Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate and special blessings to my, thinks the same way I do about St. Paul, buddy ABB. The Lord is close to the broken-hearted. May he remain close to both of us on this day.

Thankful for Peter and this blog along with his patience to all of us!

It sounds like this man used drugs in his youth and is/was a substance abuser, so he must be comfortable with lying and saying whatever it takes to "get out of" being prosecuted and found guilty of a crime.

LE in Warren Co. know what this man has in his records.

Their is no reliable denial in what Mr. Madden had to say to the interviewer.

It would have been so easy to say in the next statement, "I didn't kill her." He doesn't say it, instead he says to ask some others who know him. He expects that his "very innocent" image will get the police to drop the charges and clear him of murder, rape, and sodomy of a child?

9. But, to be honest with you. "But" negates what came before. "But, to be honest." is that he is aware he lies/manipulates/deceives and is telling us that he is not honest or trustworthy. It's spoken in an attempt to convince his audience that he is honest. that's manipulation.

10. ... I wouldn't change that situation if I could, An easy claim because it impossible to change what is past. He's attempting to bolster his claim of "honesty".

11. because that situation taught me that I can't get away with lies, I can't get away with sin, and it has partially made me into who I am todayNote the lesson is NOT that I shouldn't lie (it's a terrible sin that steals and destroys people's trust,hurts God and others, makes God look bad-"the life I profess"). The lesson he learned is that "I can't get away with lies", "I can't get away with sin." The subject doesn't consider lies a sin- he differentiates between them. So what does he consider "sin"? "...it [that situation] has "partially" made him who he is today? Partially? How so? In what way? Who is he today? Who he is today is notable to him. Note the context of that situation- he has "been caught" by those in authority, in "a serious lie", and "everything he had worked for crumbled in his hands" because his "actions did not line up with his talk", after "spending years" "building up a reputation" via "a life I professed" and he is very angry and incredulous because "all that matters is that my actions did not line up with my talk" and he is not believed and trusted...he has lost his influence and ability to manipulate.

12. . Here are three things the Bible points out that we have to do when confronted with sin in our life and the consequences of that sin. ..." Concludes his "talk", employing the vehicle previously used to deceive and manipulate others (the "life I professed").

P.S. Anonymous- Very good find! You really should choose a name. There are too many Anonymous'-it's like trying to talk to a flock. ;)

Some of my friends have experienced this:After their wives died, not much time passed before single women were showing up at their doors with cakes and casseroles and other offers of help. I expect this will happen with DB as well, especially since he is so young. It makes me sad to think some other innocent who fits the criteria of being Godly and virginal will soon be caught in DB's web. Let us hope her family will google his name, read the Statement Analysis and stop her before it's too late. We should add that to our prayers.

To Davey Blackburn:I feel sure you're visiting this site.I hope you had no part in Amanda's death. I do.I also hope you will read the words of the many professionals who have analyzed your statements and your behavior. This should give you pause to think about getting treatment. Everyone has the ability to change if they're convinced something is wrong.Something IS wrong.

Also, since he clearly states that he "even" took pictures to prove he was there, this indicates the crime was premeditated. In my opinion, him saying that he "even" took pictures to prove he was there indicates that he has killed before without making such efforts as taking pictures to "prove" his location at time of murder.

Poor Amanda was probably so overworked trying to handle everything plus his unrealistic expectations and toddler. He was probably judging her for not being as good as him at this. She must have been exhausted. I think when she told him she was pg is when he started planning. Another child meant he was going to have to slow down with pastoring in order to help out more with family and that would also curb any of his extra curricular activities....

No way. That's not happening. God spoke to him and told him how it was going to happen and nothing was going to stand in his way.

I'd like to see a psych evaluation on him. He could be psychotic or schizoaffective or evil is also a possibility.

If men are supposed to lay down their lives for their wives, maybe a good Christian wife wouldn't mind laying down her life for her husband. Amanda would forgive him and be happy God brought souls to be saved to Davey.

All indications would say that going into year 4 Resonate was no where near this goal. Something had to happen, nationally, to even come close.

https://pixpix.co/amandagblackburn/VSUEjkL6QV/

This is Perry Nobel, his mentor. No apologies, no remorse, no guilt, complete cover-up by staff and unshakeable commitment to a man - not God or scripture, but a sinful man. Davey Blackburn had a front row seat to this sick behavior by his boss, pastor and friend.

>>As such, I wonder if you have ever used Russell Williams' (Canadian Armed Forces officer, rapist, murder) videotaped confession as a learning template for comparison purposes?

I'm watching it now. I'm a little frustrated because the video I found is not the entire interview, it seems to be choppy in places. It's about two hours long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLbDzkIy3A

I'm not sure what parallels could be drawn between the interviews yet (This one vs. DB). I'm so new though, even if the parallels are there I probably wouldn't spot them. Perhaps Peter or others on the board could tell us. It's worth watching though and so far the interviewer is doing a great job.

If I understand the case correctly DB never gave an interview, just several public statements? Or at least if he did, there is no video available of it. Do you see any parallels? Did the 911 call ever come out?

I do see what Peter means by "liars contempt". Watching the video of Timothy Madden and the video of Russell Williams you linked, it's apparent.

Hi!Been checking here hoping you would analize Timothy Madden's interview.His DNA was a match to DNA taken from Gabbi's autopsy. She was raped.I would love for you to analize his father in law's interview and Timothy's wife, Jodi Madden. Edp. his poor dtr watching her mom talk speaks volumes.

http://wkrn.com/2015/11/20/wife-of-suspect-in-murder-of-7-year-old-claims-husband-is-innocent/Timothy Madden was arrested prior for Terroristic threats; his son the same thing last week.

“We know it’s not true. He’s not that kind of person,” said Madden. “He would never put his hands on a little girl and molest her.”...... “He’s an excellent father and a great husband,” his wife said. “I know he didn’t do it.”

Jodi Madden has been married to Timothy Madden for 10 years and they have two children together.

My thoughts: she softened it, with "molest", she never said he wouldn't have murdered her. Also use of the word "never". In the first person, she used a negative in "that kind of person". Meaning it's sensitive and he likely is that type of person.

I've seen on comments below this article, along with facebook comments, and several times it has been mentioned that his wife knew he was into bestiality and had watched him molest and rape a dog.

Also, in the comments below this article, a lady commented this (note: the ALL CAPS are hers, also she wrote is as one full paragraph but I broke it into sections as it is hard to follow otherwise. ):

"A VERY CLOSE INVESTIGATOR WHO IS CLOSE TO MY MAMA TOLD HER BEFORE THIS BE CAME THE SUBJECT THAT THEY MATCHED A SWAB OF DNA FROM TIM'S MOUTH TO SEMEN FOUND FROM GABBIE'S BODY. THIS MONSTER DID THIS AND HE MOLESTED ME WHEN I WAS JUST SIX YEARS OLD AND MOLESTED A DOG RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

I DOUBT HE SUES THE POLICE OR ME SINCE WE ARE TELLING THE TRUTH AND HE IS A LIAR. THE SAME ARMS FOLDED, BLINKING WHILE ANSWERING, LOWERING HEAD , JUST THIS IS EXACTLY HOW HE ACTED WHEN I WAS SIX TRYING TO TELL AND HE TOLD ME TO SHUT MY MOUTH OR HE WOULD HURT MY MAMA. HE DID IT. HE REALLY DID.

I KNOW THE INVESTIGATOR WHO TOLD MY MAMA AND THEY WILL LET THE PUBLIC KNOW LATER AT HIS HEARING JUST WHAT I'M DIVULGING TO Y'ALL THAT THE DNA SWAB FROM HIS MOUTH MATCHED THE SEMEN FROM HER BODY SO ITS NOT A RELATIVE'S DNA AND ITS ONLY TIM'S.

I DON'T LIKE HIS WIFE BECAUSE SHE IS A GOSSIPING TROUBLE MAKER BUT ONE THING I KNOW FOR SURE. SHE KNOWS HE HAS A FETISH FOR BESTIALITY AND SHE STAYED WITH HIM STILL. SHE CAUGHT HIM DOING A DOG HERSELF AND I HAD NT SAID A WORD EXCEPT TO MY MAMA ABOUT HIM DONE DID A DOG IN FRONT OF ME AFTER HE MOLESTED ME AND TIM'S WIFE REALLY CAUGHT HIM PENETRATING A DOG AND VENTED TO A FRIEND WHO TOLD SOME PEOPLE BUT HE DENIED IT BUT OH I KNEW IT WAS TRUE BECAUSE I SAW HIM DO THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

I TIL THIS DAY DONT WANT TO BE NEAR A DOG. THIS MONSTER IS NOT AN INNOCENT MAN. HE IS A MONSTER. HE DOESN'T FEEL ANY REMORSE. HE IS NOT SCREAMING CLIMBING THE WALLS THAT HE IS INNOCENT LIKE NO CRYING NO GOING OUT OF HIS MIND THEY PINNED THE WRONG PERSON BECAUSE HE IS NOT INNOCENT. TIM IS GUILTY AND HIS WIFE IS CO DEPENDENT AND AN UNFIT PARENT. I KNOW IN MY HEART EVERYTHING I SAY IS TRUE. THAT WOMAN HAS NO TRUTH."

Any thoughts on this comment? She does mention she to this day doesn't want to be near a dog, and says his body language is the same when he denied molesting her.

My Name is Paul, I'm from Germany, I will love to share my testimony to all the people in the forum cos i never thought i will have my girlfriend back and she means so much to me..The girl i want to get marry to left me 4 weeks to our wedding for another man..,When i called her she never picked my calls,She deleted me on her facebook and she changed her facebook status from engage to Single…when i went to her place of work she told her boss she never want to see me..I lost my job as a result of this cos i cant get myself anymore,my life was upside down and everything did not go smooth with my life…I tried all i could do to have her back to all did not work out until i met a Man when i Travel to Africa to execute some business have been developing some years back..I told him my problem and all have passed through in getting her back and how i lost my job…he told me he gonna help me…i don’t believe that in the first place.but he swore he will help me out and he told me the reason why my girlfriend left me and also told me some hidden secrets.i was amazed when i heard that from him..he said he will cast a spell for me and i will see the results in the next couple of days..then i travel back to Germany the following day and i called him when i got home and he said he’s busy casting those spells and he has bought all the materials needed for the spells,he said am gonna see positive results in the next 2 days that is Thursday.My girlfriend called me at exactly 12:35pm on Thursday and apologies for all she had done ..she said,she never knew what she’s doing and her sudden behavior was not intentional and she promised not to do that again.it was like am dreaming when i heard that from her and when we ended the call,i called the man and told him my my girl friend called and he said i haven’t seen anything yet… he said i will also get my job back in 3 days time..and when its Sunday,they called me at my place of work that i should resume work on Monday and they gonna compensate me for the time limit i have spent at home without working..My life is back into shape,i have my girlfriend back and we are happily married now with a baby boy and i have my job back too.This man is really powerful..if we have up to 20 people like him in the world,the world would have been a better place..he has also helped many of my friends to solve many problems and they are all happy now..Am posting this to the forum for anybody that is interested in meeting the man for help.you can mail him to priest_gbenga.magic_temple@priest.com , I cant give out his number cos he told me he don’t want to be disturbed by many people across the world..he said his email is okay and he also have a web site if you want to visit him there’ he will replied to any emails asap..hope he helped u out too..good luck. his web site is www.priestgbengamagicpalace.webs.com

My name is VINCE PENA RANDY i am from {DUNDEE SCOTLAND) I AM appreciating the great spell caster DR. RAVI BONSU ZIMIMI, A man i hold in sincere gratitude and high esteem for his help and his kindness he has rendered an unforgettable help to me and this is the reason why i have taken it upon myself to thank this great spell caster WHO HELP TO CURE MY HERPES THAT I HAVE BEEN SUFFERING FOR 16YEARS. MY WIFE LEFT ME BECAUSE OF MY SICKNESS AND NOW HE HAVE HEALED ME AND RESTORED MY WIFE BACK TO MY LIFE . IM A HEALED AND HAPPY MAN. AND I BELIEVE HE CAN ALSO HELP YOU SO EVER CALLED PROBLEM. HE IS A GREAT MAN THAT HAVE COME TO HELP THE WORD WITH HIS POWERS. CONTACT HIM VIA E-mail:bonsulivespells@hotmail.com